If a retailer is approached by a solicitor acting for a customer who has been wrongfully arrested, any redaction of faces, etc., would prejudice the retailer's case as it would suggest the CCTV had been tampered with to save the retailer's skin. As for being sued by customers for not pixelating their faces, this would only apply to footage that was made publicly available via media outlets such as YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion or broadcast or press media. Also, check Section 35, Data Protection Act 1998.

I was speaking to a senior police officer a few weeks ago who asked me if there was any way they could get a bailiff's certificate cancelled. When I explained the EAC2 procedure to them, they were surprised that such a procedure existed - no-one at chief officer level had told them about it. It make one wonder if there is a reason the officer I was talking to was kept in the dark.

The lack of professionalism by bailiffs is down to the industry not addressing the issue effectively and letting things slide. Common Purpose tend to lurk in the background and mess things about so the first anyone knows something is not right is when the bailiff turns up, claiming to be enforcing a warrant, when no proceedings or debt registration has taken place. CP "graduates" have been caught misleading DJs in the County Court and caught the sharp edge of the DJ's tongue. Others have been caught engaged in harassment against vulnerable people and been sacked or been made the subject of restraining orders.

Hence why I have heard Bohill referred to as Bonehead. I have witnessed Bulbous Brian cross the line or come near to crossing the line a few times.

In order to enjoy the legal protection a warrant confers, an EA must comply with the conditions attached to the warrant. The moment the EA deviates from the conditions, the legal protection ceases to have effect. This means the EA is open to civil litigation or criminal prosecution, as the case may be. The use of physical violence against an alleged debtor in order to gain entry is unacceptable and illegal and the EA could be facing a charge of anything from Common Assault to Unlawful or Malicious Wounding. An EA claiming to be an HCEO or executing a HC writ when, in fact, he is executing a warrant of control and secures the assistance of ignorant police officers to help him gain entry to residential property may well be committing an offence of Burglary Artifice. An EA who attempts to evict someone using a Writ No. 66 when the identities of the occupants of a property are known to the mortgagee/landlord is ultra vires ab initio. That could give rise to a charge of Using A False Instrument With Intent to Deceive (Section 3, Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981).

Do you have a link, please, mikey?

Unfortunately, CD, Common Purpose are a very real organisation and I and others have come across their "graduates" in local authorities causing chaos. When asked if they had been on a Matrix course, one of them freely admitted to having been on the CP Matrix course. Additionally, some of the more insidious activities I have come across, e.g. engineering rent arrears/benefit overpayments, have been shown to be down to those who are CP "graduates". Be in no doubt, CP is a cancer that needs removing. I have no doubt the recent referendum vote has brought out the more vociferous elements within CP. You can also identify them when they tell you that ECHR and the HRA doesn't apply to them and then nigh on mess their underwear when a few well-chosen questions bring them back to reality.

The reality, HCEOs, is more likely to be Common Purpose "graduates" trying to collapse the system and goad people into kicking off.

I hear this a lot. However, these are the offences they commit each time they make false calls to the police. You are correct in that the police do not have the time to deal with them and many officers are getting increasingly fed up with having their time wasted by EAs. I suspect the decision by CPS not to prosecute EAs is down to some agenda going on in certain quarters. I am currently awaiting a response from CPS as to why they discontinued a prosecution against an EA who battered someone and, it subsequently proved, had no valid warrant upon which to act.

It was at the end of the particular episode where Pinner cocked-up. If my memory serves me correctly, solicitors costs of £1500 + compensation of £400 for loss of earnings were paid to the poor beggar whose taxi Pinner and Bohill took.

It was the case of Birmingham City Council -v- Mondhlani [2015] that first brought the practice of using Writ No. 66 to evict people to the public's - and High Court's - attention and resulted in Senior Master Fontaine issuing the Practice Note. It is my understanding it has been necessary to issue further notice about the use of Writ No. 66 as it would appear the enforcement industry has developed convenient amnesia or selective hearing disorder. Some elements within the industry appear to be under the impression is is business as usual.

I wouldn't mind betting they were doing so using Writ No. 66, which Senior Master Fontaine at the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court issued a Practice Note about.

I know what you mean, BN. I have had people contact me about the police threatening to arrest alleged debtors if they don't let the bailiff in , allegedly, for "obstructing the Enforcement Agent". There have also been cases of EAs claiming to be HCEOs in order to get the police to help them. One thing I will say and I hope any EAs who are monitoring CAG make a careful note of this, but making a false report to the police is an offence at law. The likely offences, depending on the nature of the call, would be one of more of the following:- Wasting Police Time Misuse of A Public Electronic Telecommunications System Perverting the Course of Justice It is also becoming evident that frontline police officers are getting fed up of having their time wasted by EAs who are employing questionable methods of carrying out their duties.

The way Bohill behaves, he should not be granted an EA certificate full-stop. I have my doubts about Pinner's competence, especially in the episode of "Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away" when they were told by the creditor they had made a mistake and were harassing the wrong person. That didn't stop Pinner carrying on regardless and taking away the innocent party's taxi. As a result of that act of idiocy, the creditor was landed with a bill of around £1900 - £2000 in compensation and legal costs in the innocent party's favour.

I am glad you have confirmed what I have highlighted in blue, HCEOs. This has been my understanding for sometime. As for the bit I have highlighted in red, I am currently working on a case where a certain High Court enforcement operator used a Writ No. 66 for a mortgage repossession and the transfer paperwork is equally suspect. Another repossession making use of a Writ No. 66 appeared on the internet last week. Solicitors and creditors need to ensure their High Court enforcement agents are acting within the law because, as sure as eggs are eggs, it is, sooner or later, going to come back and hit them in the face and I can see those involved being stripped of their EA certificates or AHCEO status, as well as writs for damages being issued against creditors, law firms and others involved in repossessions.

If motorists have updated details with DVLA, then this would indicate that Capita, who own Parking Eye, are doing something very dangerous, in the legal sense, indeed. In the first instance, if DVLA confirm details motorists have given them are correct, then it would suggest PE are quoting wrong details on court documents, e.g. putting Street instead of Road when it is, in fact, Road. If only a small number of cases are affected in this way, then it would indicate carelessness in completing court documents. However, if the number of cases are significant, then this would suggest that the courts are being mislead. Solicitors acting for PE will know or ought to know that such behaviour amounts to serious professional misconduct under the Solicitors Code of Conduct. The SRA has the power to suspend a solicitor's practice certificate, pending investigation, in serious cases, or strike them off the roll of solicitors following investigation. However, the High Court has immediate responsibility for the supervision of solicitors, who are officers of the senior courts, and has the power to suspend a solicitor from practising or strike them off, with immediate effect.

Responses in red text.

An unfortunate sidetrack, CB.

Would lender and borrower be easier?

I wish I could, DB, but the case is still live and waiting for the mortgagor to respond to Chancery's instruction. Quite a few of the cases I have dealt with involve irregularities from the outset. Obviously, once the case is concluded, then, more details can be given.

In a number of cases, it is the mandatory checks lenders and their agents are supposed to conduct before arranging a mortgage that lands mortgagors in hot water. In one case, Chancery ruled the mortgage was unenforceable and the repossession was unlawful, too, due to irregularities from the outset and through to repossession. In fact, on hearing the Chancery ruling, the mortgagor and their estate agent could not remove the metal shutters and tear down the FOR SALE signs fast enough. The mortgagor has been summoned before Chancery to explain their behaviour, but, as yet, has not responded. That was some months ago.

Provided a lender has complied with the law TO THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW, then there should be no problem. However, in more recent times, when cases are stripped back to the bare bones, shortcomings, omissions and irregularities in the offer, setting up and conduct of the mortgage itself are revealed. My practice is to take a mortgage right back to when the mortgagee first approached the lender and then come forward, examining paperwork, conduct and proceedings. I am looking for things that are out of kilter with due legal process. Bear in mind that a contract is only enforceable if a court rules it to be. Under English Law, a contract cannot be made or exist or be enforced if it allows any of the parties to the contract to do anything unlawful or illegal. sillygirl1 was asking if the ruling in Dunlop Rubber Tyre Company -v- New Street Garage and Motor Co [1915] could be applied to a mortgage. In my view, no it could not. If the mortgagor has been indemnified by a Mortgage Indemnity Insurance policy, then any attempt to double or even triple dip would amount to Unjustifiable Enrichment. A court would be persuaded to strike out the mortgagor's claim if that became apparent during the course of proceedings. With regard to foreclosure, unless the mortgagor can prove they have not sub-participated, is the first party of interest and can prove they actually loaned money to the mortgagee and not provided a credit facility only, then the mortgagor would have the right to foreclose. If not, then I very much doubt the mortgagor would be able to foreclose, regardless of LOPA, without their lack of candour becoming apparent.

You clearly think lenders and solicitors are above reproach, don't you, Dodgeball. It's not as cut and dry as you seem to think it is. Don't think for one minute that the LOPA will extricate a lender from the excrement. I've been involved in helping people with repossession cases which are no more than blatant land grabbing.

Picking up on sillygirl1's post, case law on mortgages is changing all the time. Also, you need to go right back to the beginning of the mortgage and, often, before, to the offer, to establish whether the alleged lender does, in fact, have a right to foreclose and to seek possession. In England and Wales, a mortgagee is more likely to find equitable justice in the High Court than in the lower courts, which, thanks to PCOL, have become little more than rubber-stamping offices.

And I am not going to disagree with what you say, neil_tp.